L.Suganya Vs The Assistant Settlement Officer (North)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.09.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

 THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶5

W.P. NO.18188 OF 2021

¶6

L. Suganya

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

1. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. 2. The Special Tahsildar, Town Survey and Settlement Revenue, Alandur, Chengalput District, Chennai.

¶10

3. L.Ukesh,

¶11

4. P.Deekaraman

¶12

 ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying for the issue a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the 1st respondent to pass orders on appeal filed by
the 3rd respondent dated 10.03.2017 preferred against the order
made in Na.Ka. 1181/2016 dated 02.12.2016 passed by the 2nd
respondent within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court and
pass orders accordingly.

¶14

For Petitioner :: Mr.V.Manisekaran
For Respondents-1&2 :: Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
 (Government Advocate)
For Respondents-3&4 :: No Appearance

¶15

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a
direction to the 1st respondent to pass orders on appeal filed
by the 3rd respondent dated 10.03.2017 preferred against the
order made in Na.Ka. 1181/2016 dated 02.12.2016 passed by the
2nd respondent within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court
and pass orders accordingly.

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that an extent of 1.16 cents in T.S. No.184/3G, 184/3H, 184/3I
and 184/4 (Paimash Nos.557 and 558) Ward No.E, Block No.9, and
174, 176, 198, 199, 200, 210, 211 and 81/2, (Paimash Nos.557,
558 and 586) Ward No.E, Block No.13, situated in Adambakkam
Village, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram was owned by Ponnuranga
Naicker who is the petitioner's husband grandfather and he
having purchased the same by registered sale deed bearing
document No.2182 of 1948 dated 29.10.1948 from one Dharmalingam.
The said Ponnuranga Naicker died on 26.11.1976 leaving behind
wife and two sons namely Meenambal, Sankaran and 4th respondent
namely, P.Deekaraman as his legal heirs. The said Meenambal died
on 15.11.1994 and Sankaran predeceased his father and mother on
15.01.1965. The said Sankaran leaving behind the wife and
children namely Susila, son-Lakshmipathi, daughters- Poongothai
and Shanthi as his legal heirs. The said Susila died on
20.09.2005 and Lakshmipathi died on 13.06.2001. The said
deceased Lakshmipathi who is the father of the petitioner
leaving behind the wife namely L. Lakshmi and his two sons
namely the petitioner herein and 3rd respondent herein as his
legal heirs and further said Shanti died on 03.05.2016 leaving
behind her husband namely Rajendran, her son namely Prabhakaran,
his daughters namely Padmavathi and Karpagam as her legal heirs.
While the fact remain so, after death of said Ponnuranga Naicker
and Meenambal, the said Sankaran and 4th respondent herein were
entitled to get the equal share in the above said property,
however the aforesaid property was not divided equally so far,
as per Hindu Succession Act.

¶18

3. It has been further submitted that the Revenue records
pertaining to the above said Survey Numbers stand in the name of
said Ponnuranga Naicker, till the 4 respondent herein
transferred the entire property in his name. After death of the
grandfather of the petitioner namely Ponnuranga Naicker, the
family members of the petitioner are enjoying the property along
with his other legal heirs including 4th respondent herein
without any encumbrance and hindrance of others. In the
meanwhile, the 4th respondent mutated the revenue records with
help of the Revenue Officials claiming to be owner of the
aforesaid property as if he is the only legal heirs of the
deceased Ponnuranga Naicker. After obtaining Patta in his name,
the 4th respondent settled the aforesaid property in favour of
his sons namely D.Suresh and D.Subash by registered settlement
deeds on various dates after having received a certificate from
the 2nd respondent as the aforesaid Survey Nos. were recorded in
his name. Thus, the 4th respondent has occupied the entire
property without giving the share in the ancestral property to
other co-owners. The Revenue Officials and 4th respondent are
colluded with each other have mutated the revenue records
illegally without the consent and knowledge of the family
members of the petitioner. In the interregnum, while the 4th

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

respondent's son namely D.Suresh has executed a General Power of
Attorney deeds in favour of the 3rd parties on various dates.
Thereafter, the brother of the petitioner/3rd respondent herein
submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking for to
cancel the patta which was already issued in the name of the 4th
respondent herein and issue a combined Patta to all the legal
heirs including the 4th respondent towards the entire property.
After conducting the enquiry, the 2nd respondent has passed the
order in Na. Ka.1181/2016 dated 02.12.2016 wherein the 2nd
respondent had divided the entire property into two equal share
and allotted one share to the 4th respondent herein and another
share to legal heirs of deceased Sankaran is absolutely illegal
and beyond his jurisdiction. Though the petitioner requested the
2nd respondent who is the competent authority at the point of
time to issue a Joint Patta, however, the 2nd respondent passed
an order to issue patta in respect of T.S. Nos. 174, 176, 198,
199, 200, 210, 211 and 81/2, and 184/3G in the name of the legal
heirs of the Sankaran and confirmed the Patta granted in the
name of the 4th respondent in respect of T.S. Nos.184/3H, 184/3I
and 184/4 which is highly impermissible in the eye of law.
Being aggrieved the aforesaid order, the 3rd respondent herein
had filed an appeal before the 1st respondent against the order
passed by 2nd respondent on 10.03.2017. Since the appeal filed
by 3rd respondent is pending before the 1st respondent, he filed
a W.P. No.24349 of 2017 before this Court seeking for Writ of
Manadums directing the 2nd respondent therein to dispose of the
appeal filed by him. Pursuant to the above, this Court directed
the 1st respondent to pass order within eight weeks on his
appeal. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted on 27.04.2018 and
reserved the case for passing appropriate orders. However, till
date no orders have been passed in the appeal and further
pending appeal, the other co-owners sold a portion of land to
the 3rd party which causing irreparable loss and hardship to
the petitioner and her family members. Further, the petitioner
being one of the share holder in the said property who is the
sister of the 3rd respondent could not able to obtain her share
due to pending of appeal filed by the 3rd respondent. Hence, the
petitioner is left with no other alternative and efficacious
remedy except to approach this Court by invoking its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Hence,
this Petition.

¶21

4.The learned Government Advocate would submit that the
petitioner is the sister of the 3rd respondent who has already
filed W.P. No.24349 of 2017 seeking for a direction to dispose
of the appeal filed by him. This Court directed by its order
dated 11.09.2017 to the 2nd respondent therein to dispose of the
appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of that order. Even though enquiry was conducted on
27.04.2018, further orders are yet to be passed by the 1st
respondent in accordance with law on the appeal filed by the 3rd

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

respondent herein. Hence, the 1st respondent may be directed
to pass an appropriate order on the appeal filed by the 3rd
respondent herein within a time frame as fixed by this Court in
accordance with law.

¶24

5. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 as well
as perused the material available on records.

¶25

6. On a perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen
that after passing orders dated 11.09.2017, in W.P. No.24349 of
2019 by this Court, an enquiry was conducted on 27.04.2018 and
the case was reserved for passing an appropriate orders in that
regard by the authority concerned. Even the enquiry has been
completed over this issue, the suitable orders are yet to be
passed on the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent dated
10.03.2017 preferred against the order made in Na.Ka. 1181/2016
dated 02.12.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent. Hence, this
Court, without expressing any opinion with regard to the merits
of the case, directs the 1st respondent to pass appropriate
orders on the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent herein in
accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.

¶26

7. With the aforesaid directions, this Writ petition is
disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed if any. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

Lbm

¶32

To:

¶33

1. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶34

2. The Special Tahsildar, Town Survey and Settlement Revenue, Alandur, Chengalput District, Chennai.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.V.Manisekaran, Advocate, S.R.No.43767

¶36

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.44600

¶37

W.P. No.18188 of 2021

¶38

GPL(CO)

¶39

RLP(01/11/2021)

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

L.Suganya v. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Suganya v. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramesh Vs T.S.Gowrama

T.R.Damodaran Vs The District Collector

P.Ramachandran Vs The District Registrar

A.Rajendiran Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

A.J.Indira Vs The Sub Registrar

R.Vadivambal Vs The Revenue Divisional officer